The Trump administration on Thursday filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, asking it to narrow the scope of injunctions against its immigrations policies and to thwart the emerging use of local District Court judges to issue nationwide blocks on its policies.

"[Broad injunctions] compromise the executive branch’s ability to carry out its functions,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote. “This court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched." The Solicitor General files or defends cases on behalf of the U.S., and answers directly to the Attorney General. It is under the Department of Justice's remit.

Harris has so far filed three appeals in three separate cases involving Trump's birthright citizenship order, which directs federal agencies to not interpret the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to the children of foreigners born within the U.S. interior. 

Four federal district court judges have temporarily blocked the policy, purportedly nationwide. The courts issuing temporary injunctions are located in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington.

Judicial setbacks

The administration specifically asked that the courts narrow the orders to apply only to the plaintiff parties in each case, rather than block the order at a national level. Harris's argument, moreover, comes as district judges have increasingly blocked Trump's myriad policies on their own authority.

Harris wrote in her briefs (identical in all three of the cases still in district court) that "District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration.  That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this Court’s emergency docket."

Throughout Trump’s 53 days back in office, he has faced a flurry of nationwide injunctions against his executive orders. This week alone, Judge Beryl Howell blocked the administration’s revocation of security clearances for the Perkins Coie law firm, which helped the Clinton campaign fund the Steele Dossier, and Judge Ana Reyes demanded that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth retract a public statement suggesting that the Defense Department would not permit any transgender persons to serve as part of a suit challenging the department’s new trans policy. The same week, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the reinstatement of thousands of probationary employees from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior and the Treasury Department, whom the administration fired as part of a broad effort to shrink the federal government.

Will the Supreme Court step in this time?

The most straightforward remedy to the issue would be for the Supreme Court to intervene in one of these cases by defining the scope of their authority, as the Trump administration has requested. “Obama & Biden put leftwing saboteurs (even foreign citizens) on the bench (especially in DC) who are doing everything they can to destroy the presidency—thus, our country,” Attorney Mike Davis, the former Chief Counsel for Nominations to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, posted on Thursday. “Activist judges now control foreign aid and military readiness? Dangerous. Will Supreme Court stop them?”

The justices had exactly that opportunity earlier this month, but declined to take it. The Supreme Court recently sided against the administration on the matter of a lower court order demanding that the executive branch release U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds. The 5-4 ruling did, however, permit the case to continue through the lower courts.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, however, raised the constitutional question of a district judge’s authority in a scathing dissent. "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” he wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.” 

Allies assert executive authority

One of — if not the — central issue is the constitutional separation of powers. The legislative, executive and judicial branches are officially co-equal, but Congress is responsible for the establishment of lower courts below the Supreme Court. The scope of those courts’ authority stands as the primary question.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power,” Vice President JD Vance said in February.

“In addition to running the White House, federal judges are now in charge of the military—or think they are. James Madison, where are you?” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, quipped in March over the Reyes order. Lee was likely referring to Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 Supreme Court ruling that has been the bedrock case defining the relationship between the judiciary and executive branch. The reasoning in Madison was that it was unconstitutional to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.  

“These judges are waging an unprecedented assault on legitimate presidential authority, all the way down to dictating what webpages the government has,” Lee said in February.

Legislative fixes?

Article III, Section I of the U.S. Constitution reads that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress, goes the argument, has the ability to set the limits on the authority of lower courts and address the matter via traditional legislation. Outside groups of that mindset, such as the Article III Project, have begun to pressure Congress to address the matter of perceived judicial activism and even gone so far as to draft their own legislation to present to the chambers.

“With the Supreme Court's refusal today to rein in DC activist judges sabotaging the President's Article II executive powers, Congress must step up,” Article III Project Founder Mike Davis said. “[Article III Project] is drafting proposed legislation to bring much-needed reforms to the DC District Court.”

Davis has yet to publicly identify a plan to rein in what he and others call rogue judges, though Lee has offered a tangible proposal. Rather than permitting a single judge to issue an injunction, he has suggested requiring a panel of judges to hear the matter before issuing such a block.

“A single district judge shouldn’t be able to overturn an executive decision made by the president,” he said in March. “I’ll soon be introducing a bill requiring such orders to be considered by a three-judge district court.

Impeachment of federal judges?

To date, only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached, with just eight convicted in the Senate for acts ranging from being drunk on the bench to bribery and inappropriate conduct. The process for impeaching federal judges, however, is similar to that of any other official and removal would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. Republicans have 53 votes and any impeachment for blocking a Trump initiative is unlikely to attract Democratic support.

Some calls for impeachment have grown amid the flurry of injunctions, with lawmakers and Trump loyalists urging Congress to act. “No one voted for these rogue judges. They should be impeached!” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., wrote on Thursday in response to the ruling on federal employees.

“It must be done,” posted Elon Musk, addressing a similar call. Thus far, however, the effort has not moved forward in any meaningful way and members of the federal judiciary have expressed concerns that doing so could undermine judicial independence.

“Impeachment shouldn’t be a short circuit,” US Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan told CNN. “It is concerning if impeachment is used in a way designed to do just that.”